Clearly everyone should just let China do whatever they want to avoid war, if we appease them by expanding their territorial claims and avoiding conflict then surely everything will be fine. The politics of appeasement has historically been very successful.
Edit: I used to be in a romantic relationship with a guy who was middling in the CCP party hierarchy. (We broke up because I said that I thought China had to share some of the blame for border tension with India.) People who are stating or implying that I am ignorant about China or that I am a liberal probably know a fraction of what I know about China, the party or even communism. I have personal, lived experience of being in a gay relationship with a member of the party, which is probably, single-handedly, the funniest and cringiest sentence I will ever write, and I’m so honoured to share that with you all.
It is the USA that has been the target of appeasement. Every expansion, every death squad, every war crime, every black site, every assassination, every war of aggression, every single time the world appeases the USA.
If you think the USA is appeasing China, your head is screwed on backwards. I know it's a common trope for abusers to feel offended and attacked when their victims standup for themselves, and I know you probably stand with the victims and see through the abusers' bullshit. You need to do that with the USA.
Abu Ghraib - appeased.
Nord Stream 2 - appeased.
Solemaini - appeased.
Iraq - appeased.
Iraq 2 - appeased.
Vietnam - appeased.
Laos - appeased.
Cambodia - appeased.
Korea - appeased.
Hiroshima - appeased.
Nagasaki - appeased.
Guantanamo - appeased.
Libya - appeased.
Syria - appeased.
StuxNet - appeased.
Pulling out of nuclear treaties - appeased.
Refusing to be accountable to ICC - appeased.
Refusing to sign landmine treaty - appeased.
Agent Orange - appeased.
Napalm - appeased.
White phosphorus - appeased.
Depleted Uranium - appeased.
Yugoslavia - appeased.
Afghanistan - appeased.
School of the Americas - appeased.
Wiretapping the entire US civilian population - appeased.
Wiretapping every embassy through Siemens supply chain attack - appeased.
NATO expansion - appeased.
Economic shock therapy kills millions - appeased.
Training terrorists - appeased.
Airlifting terrorists into other countries - appeased.
Environmental devastation - appeased.
Sending expired vaccines - appeased.
Refusing to send vaccines - appeased.
Refusing to follow the predefined protocol for sharing vaccine research - appeased.
Iranian regime change - appeased.
Color revolutions - appeased.
Extracting trillions from Africa - appeased.
Child separation - appeased.
Toddlers in solitary confinement - appeased.
Forced hysterectomies - appeased.
Collective punishment of civilians - appeased.
Support for Israeli apartheid - appeased.
Iran-Contra - appeased.
Fast and Furious - appeased.
CIA drug trafficking - appeased.
Haitian assassination - appeased.
Bolivia - appeased.
Nicaragua - appeased.
Pinochet - appeased.I can keep going if you want.
Fuck the United States. They’re easily the worst, most imperialist nation on the planet. But we’re capable of more nuance than “any country in opposition to the US can do no wrong”
What the fuck is wrong with you? The idea that the USA could possibly engage in appeasement is completely undermined by the fact that THEY ARE THE AGGRESSOR WHO IS BEING APPEASED. When China pushes back against the USA they are not doing something wrong, they are doing something against the USA's interests. When China doesn't push back against the USA, they are appeasing.
The entire analysis of "oh everyone is bad and therefore the USA shouldn't appease them" is completely structureless. It's all moron vibes.
You see - fuck the US - but if the US is putting 12 000 km away from their mainland military equipment on what they recognize as China's territory, it is actually "CCP imperialism" if they react ;)
Thanks for your reply, before I address it, I have to ask, would you support it if the CCP government launched a military invasion of Taiwan?
I would need to analyze the situation. The CPC has established it will not do this for any reason except to protect Chinese national security interests. If it turns out that the USA delivers advanced missile "defense" systems and other nuclear capabilities including submarines, air power, and other plaforms and assets, then it will be all but strategically certain that China will be forced to use military action to push the USA off the island and out of the surrounding waters.
Given the analysis of the Ukraine conflict, it's possible that China may need to include other considerations that I am not fully up to speed on about American capabilities and American proxy war strategies.
In short, yes, I trust the CPC to only use military force when all other options for defense against the USA have been exhausted. This has been their policy and doctrine for a while and there are no indications of it changing anytime soon.
Honestly, I don’t think we really disagree all that much in broad terms. We both hate US imperialism. I just don’t see the CCP as an omni-benevolent state which can do no wrong. Until the world is ready to fully transition away from capitalism, greed and totalitarianism, it is best to limit the power and influence of nation states. And that includes states which claim to be transitioning towards communism. Checks and balances against supremacy prevents anti-revolutionary elements from seizing control of the state and turning its power against the people. Let’s just agree to disagree, move on with our lives, and spend our energy arguing with people who still support capitalism instead.
We do disagree, a lot. For example you think I believe that China is omnibenevolent. I don't.
Another example, you think it's possible to limit the power and influence of nationstates without simultaneously expanding the power and influence of nationstates. Exactly how do you think this is possible? Who, exactly, is going to limit the power and influence of China? After that power and influence is limited, what do you think will happen to the power and influence of others.
What you don't seem to understand is that China is STILL going through the process of limiting the power and influence of the North Atlantic in China's own physical location. The USA however, is busy limiting the power and influence of other nations in those nations' physical locations. Pushing back against the North Atlantic is literally how you achieve the goal you say you want.
The idea of having checks and balances in an international world order that has spent the last 600 years dominating 80% of the world's population with abject brutality and genocide required the expansion of power and influence of formerly oppressed states. Like it or not, you can't just reduce the USA's influence with vibes while the USA reduces China's influence with nukes.
If the United States’s Union split in half tomorrow, then the power of the United States would be diminished. This would simultaneously strengthen every other nation state in comparison. So by limiting the power of the CCP, we reduce their ability to cause harm. It’s not a zero sum game between the US and China or even NATO and China. There are plenty of other people involved. This isn’t a video game. We are talking about people’s lives.
And yes, I also oppose NATO.
Anyways, I’m done with you. I have tried to build consensus and establish equal ground but you just refuse to admit that you made assumptions about me that were wrong. I don’t want to spend any more time talking to someone who won’t respect what I write enough to actually read it.
LOL, you tried to establish common ground by assuming shit about me and when I explain my position you take offense. You can't imagine that reducing Chinese power inherently increases North Atlantic power despite not being a zero sum game. You live in a fantasy world.
My Chinese ex would refer to it as CCP, so I’ll stick with that, since I trust him on this more than internet randoms. Actually, he’d usually just refer to it as “the party”, or occasionally “zhonggong”, but that would be a bit confusing, so CCP it is.
My point is that despite the party using CPC officially, even Chinese people will use CCP or “the party” when communicating outside of China, and inside China they will call it zhonggong, or the full name, which I will not embarrass myself by attempting to reproduce. Like I said, I know more about this shit than you do, so give it a fucking rest. It doesn’t matter whether I call it CPC or CCP as long as my communication is clear, and everyone knew exactly what I was referringn to.
Frankly, I think you are a liar and don't care what you have to say. "The Communist Party of China" is the official English-language title, and is in the format of the majority of communist parties worldwide.
Calling it the CCP is a transparent and pathetic attempt to demonstrate information control, to force your enemy to be referred to by the name you assign them. It is a method of racist dehumanization and a way for liberals to affirm to each other that they are not committing wrongthink by using the name officially sanctioned by their masters.
If you think I’m a liar and you don’t care what I have to say then I have nothing more to say to you. But I have told the truth 100% of the time in all of my comments on this website. You can look into my history for all of the times where I have made errors or mistakes and apologised and admitted that I was wrong, and all of the times where people have asked me to prove my claims that they found unbelievable which I was able to prove.
I don’t have any proof of my relationship that I could share which isn’t extremely personal, so there’s no much I can do to prove my claim, but what I do have is a WeChat account. You cannot have a WeChat account in the west without getting a citizen of mainland China to vouch for you. I know it’s not much proof, but yeah, I’m not going to share photos of us together or our conversations or anything like that.
*removed externally hosted image*
You don’t even know the name of the party. Taiwan is part of China and will always be
Fuck the United States. They’re easily the worst, most imperialist nation on the planet.
"But somehow I keep finding all these familiar geopolitical flashpoints where I support them."
The Fast and Furious thing is not a bit, btw. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
TIL, thanks! I'm not an American so I hadn't ever heard of that one. I removed my comment on it.
I’m not a lib. And no, I don’t believe in supporting the lesser evil. I don’t support any evil.
Why do you try to attack an identity you’re assuming that I hold, rather than addressing my actual arguments? Could it be because you’re incapable of actually successfully arguing against the points I’m making?
And no, I’m not an “ultra”, though it’s quite a vaguely defined term, I’m not opposed to all of the structures that ultra-leftists are traditionally opposed to. Keep guessing, though. You’ll probably get it eventually. The world is a nuanced place and you shouldn’t try to shove everything into a convenient box to make it easier to deal with. That’s lib behaviour. You should know better.
My argument is that neither side should invade the other and that they should peacefully coexist. I support peace, balanced reconciliation, and the end of capitalism.
Yes, my comment included the word appeasement. What’s your point?
Seem contradictory to use charged language like 'appeasement '. And then to say you want everyone to coexist peacefully. It seems to advocate for containment which isn't peaceful coexistence.
Would you explain what the contradiction is between a desire for peace and an opposition to imperialism?
If “containment of x” means “making it harder for x to invade” then yes, I am advocating for that so long as the ends justify the means, and yes, that is peaceful coexistence. If you have a personal problem with that, then I don’t care. But it’s a perfectly coherent philosophy.
The contradiction is saying that allowing a country to defend/enforce its borders is appeasement. The implications is that to do so is aggression.
Are you more interested in categorizing ideologies or in actual material conditions?
Pretty good, actually! Thanks for asking. I don’t want to get into too many details, but let’s just say that the roles were reversed from what you’re imagining. He was a lovely guy, it’s a shame that he was so inflexible with his beliefs, we got along really well because we shared a lot of common ground. I think the India/China thing was the first thing we actually disagreed on, and that was enough to end our relationship. Which is absolutely fair, but it took me a bit by surprise at the time.
He called it CCP himself lmfao you guys are so fucking funny. Love that being in a relationship with a Chinese guy meant that I was sinophobic. This is literally the most amusing thread I’ve ever created, I’m so glad I wrote my comment.
I agree, we are capable of more nuance than the ludicrous position you just made up right now to shut down the conversation before you have to do any uncomfortable introspection.
You jumped to conclusions about my position and now you’re upset that your assumption was wrong? Sounds like a you problem.
The 21st century indo-pacific is not a comparable issue to 20th century Central Europe. Also appeasement wasn't even the complete disaster casual observers like to make it out to be (who still won the war after all?) but that's beside the point here. Taiwan is not some defenseless independent country being threatened by the reincarnation of Hitler calling for world domination. It's a part of China that broke away in an ideological civil war that China wants back. Even the US state department acknowledges this fact, yet they still believe it is very important that they protect one part of China from another part of China and extend their civil war which should have ended for good decades ago. This is not an act of peace or charity, this is creating a conflict situation, with Taiwan right in the center of any potential explosion.
See, the US doesn't care about these concerns is because the real reason America is in Taiwan is so they can use it as a strategic base for operations to oppose and weaken the PRC, a "West Berlin of Asia" so to say. And somehow, liberals and social democratic opportunists have deluded themselves into believing that stationing the most powerful naval fleet in history (US 7th Fleet) to permanently do 'freedom of navigation exercises' (armed provocations) in Chinese coastal waters is the "moderate" solution to this conflict. And I suppose we'll just have to keep the navy there forever right? Or until the PRC finally collapses? (I'm still waiting lol)
I say we should cut a deal with the PRC, let them have Loser Island in exchange for mediating other border disputes with their neighbors. A majority of Taiwanese citizens want more integration with China, and they're still their largest trading partner. While immediate annexation wouldn't be popular, a gradual process of integration would be best for the entire region. It would allow the two biggest military powers to step down their aggressive actions against each other, end the period of Taiwanese citizens being used as a geopolitical pawn, and provide a solid diplomatic framework to settle future disputes in the region (as this would be a massive rapprochement in Sino-American relations) This wouldn't even weaken American national security (which is what everyone hates about 'appeasement') since it's, you know, an occupied imperialist outpost on the other side of the world's largest ocean, not even in America's hemisphere.
Of course this option would be totally unacceptable for the American imperialist apparatus, they would never be willing to lose such an important base in the Pacific (just ignore that they would still have Japan, Guam, Philippines, etc). So what's going to happen instead is that the US is eventually going to get distracted and entangled in some other imperialist mess, because they can't recognize their empire is hopelessly overextended, and China will just take Taiwan when they think the balance of power is in their favor. This would be the worse thing to happen: a chaotic breakdown of the region instead of a negotiated reordering. There will be decades of bitterness and calls for mass violence. Maybe it will also escalate and some ships get sunk and the nukes fly and oh well its World War 3. Beware those who call diplomacy 'appeasement' in the post-atomic age, they seek your death.
How can you consider yourself anti-imperialist when you’re talking about unilaterally giving entire countries to other countries?
Is the Donbas a separate country because it declared independence from Ukraine?
EDIT: Which is actually more than Taiwan has done, the government in exile on Taiwan considers itself the rightful government of the entirety of mainland China and parts of Mongolia.
Way to just completely ignore my point and move the goal posts?
Are the 13 colonies a separate country because they declared independence from the United Kingdom?
Don’t bother replying. I don’t want waste my time talking to people who can’t answer a simple question
I'm not moving the goalposts, I'm just pointing out that it's a bit disingenuous to frame a question about what should happen in an unresolved civil war as a question of nations and their sovereignty. It would be disingenuous to frame Russia's intervention in Ukraine as defending the independence of an entire country, I think it's a similar situation between ROC/PRC, the primary difference being the length of the dispute.
Which is relevant if we're talking about how one can consistently be anti-imperialist, I think. I agree it's a bit flippant to say stuff about 'giving up Loser Island' but I think it's important to recognize that it's more complicated than 'two independent countries fighting over the territory of one of them.'
Don’t bother replying. I don’t want waste my time talking to people who can’t answer a simple question
Taiwan isn't a country. They don't consider themselves independent, China doesn't consider them independent, the U.S. doesn't consider them independent.
How can you consider yourself anti-imperialiat when you don't know the basic facts of the situation?
Did you even bother to read the comments you're replying to? Taiwan isn't a country and it never has been. It has been a part of the nation of China for centuries. When the civil war broke out, it was between two political groups inside the nation of China, a nation that includes the island of Taiwan. The communists won the war and the KMT lost and fled to Taiwan, an island in the nation of China. Because the KMT fled, the civil war continues, but the imperialist countries (UK, USA) intervened to protect the losing army that was holes up on an insland in the nation of China.
That army, the KMT, never declared independence, never said they were a separate sovereign entity, and never created a new country. They said they were the rightful rulers of the nation of China, which includes the island of Taiwan.
The imperilaists wanted the civil war to continue because they wanted control over the nation of China, which includes the island of Taiwan. So they made the KMT their proxy and funded and armed them, even while the KMT engaged in brutal mass murder campaigns and brutal political repression for 4 decades. It's called the White Terror. Look it up. People living on Taiwan, an island in th nation of China, were Chinese nationals. When the KMT lost, many of those people wanted to end the war and recognize the communists as the new leaders of the nation of China, of which they were a part. The KMT murdered thousands of them. The imperialists agreed that this was right and good.
The UN had a seat for the nation of China. The recognized the KMT and gave them the seat at the UN. Not two seats, one for one nation and one for another, one seat for one nation, the nation of China which includes the island of Taiwan. Eventually it became untenable to recognize the KMT as the leaders of the nation of China and the world shifted to recognizing the communists of the nation of China, a nation that has an unbroken history of having an island called Taiwan which no one has challenged.
And since then, the imperilaists who cannot allow other nations to govern themselves in their own interests, has been maintaining and exacerbating the civil war to keep their proxy war against communists going.
It is anti-imperialist to support China against the interests of the West.
Have you considered the possibility that people living in Fuzhou, Putian, Quanzhou, Xiamen and Zhangzhou (among many millions of others along the coast) don't want to have American nukes pointed at them a mere 200-300 kilometers away?
Also neither China, the US, the :international-community-1::international-community-2: or the rest of the world do not recognize Taiwan as independent. Only the :nato-cool: despite this, want to wrest Taiwan away to build a puppet state.
Oh yeah and the official acronymn is "CPC".
In your comment below, you shared an image of a United States passport. So you’re from the US. And how long have you lived there?
Also "appeasement" is a made up post-hoc explanation for the western Allies' actions before WW2, blaming the supposed naivete or lack of spine of the leaders for simply allowing the Nazis to make expansionist moves uncontested, rather than it being an intentional policy to get out of their way and try to direct them eastwards against the Soviet Union.
Good comment, this lie also works with the thought terminating cliche of bumbling accidental empires in a damn near synergistically perfect way
Your second paragraph is a great point. Even taking whatever the U.S. State Department says about China at face value, comparing a nuclear standoff to 1930s Europe is ridiculous.
The United States is clearly evil and doesn’t have good intentions. I’m not an idiot. But we also need to be critical of the wrongdoings of the Chinese state.
There is a spectrum of options between “do nothing” and “go to war”. I would not support a US military intervention in a war between Taiwan and the CCP.
Clearly, the CCP is nowhere near on the scale of Nazi Germany, though when we talk of appeasement, it wasn’t quite at the levels of conquering all of Eastern Europe at the time, but I’m not going to split hairs over that - your point that I shouldn’t compare them is completely valid and fair.
I think continuing to keep things at a stalemate where neither country gets invaded is the best state of affairs for the time being, until something changes geopolitically. For that reason, I am not going to decry the supply of weapons to Taiwan, because that provides disincentive for an invasion of Taiwan, and makes military conflict less likely.
I agree with your comment completely, stability and peace in the region is definitely not what the United States wants, long term. But that doesn’t mean that every single thing they do is wrong, and it doesn’t mean that every thing the US’s opponents do is right. We should take the actions and outcomes of these actors at face value, continue to advocate for peace and reconciliation and encourage more nuanced, balanced takes rather than hugely polarising positions. Thank you for engaging and considering what I wrote, we can build a better world if we keep building consensus, treating those with whom we disagree respectfully (assuming that they’re not being intolerant assholes!) and talking things through! <3
I appreciate your openness here. I think the PRC would also prefer peaceful engagement with the longer term goal of peaceful reincorporation, the trade ties they've cultivated in spite of US hostility I think lend credence to their sincerity there. In the big picture I just don't think the region can sustain two governments that each claim sovereignty over the same areas, and given their historical cultural and economic ties I think reunification would be the outcome of a process of dialogue between them.
I agree, it seems that the political instability can’t last for too much longer, and I’m hoping for a peaceful resolution in whatever way that is. I have to admit that I would prefer a peaceful bipartisan result where each state relinquishes their claims on the other, but I have to admit that seems very unlikely and that your conclusion that they would most likely reunify is the most likely result.
feddit.uk
lmao is this literally a lemmy instance for British feds? this has to be some reverse psychology from the Ml5
Britain doesn't have "feds", fed is a really American thing. It's short for "federated reddit" basically.
Britain doesn’t have “feds”, fed is a really American thing.
wiktionary says otherwise and even has a newspaper citation for British use of it to refer to local cops.
(I guess thanks to Hollywood's influence...)
just let China do whatever they want
No one is saying this, but go off.
The politics of appeasement has historically been very successful.
the one singular lesson liberals were able to tease out from all their history classes on ww2
“I can’t refute your argument so I’ll just call you uneducated, instead.”
I’m not a liberal, by the way.
Again, not a liberal. Opposing imperialism from China doesn’t make one a liberal. This is like an example of what a school kid would write as an example of affirming the consequent. Pretty funny stuff!
Yeah, I wanted to be on a relatively small, relatively politically neutral instance with a lot of normal people, where I could express myself freely, argue for balance and nuance in an increasingly polarised world, and build working class solidarity where it actually needs to be built, rather than confining myself to an echo chamber.
It’s okay, you don’t have to do it if you don’t want to - from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs, after all.
You're the kind of 'communist' Lenin tells us not to laugh at
These are the territorial claims of the government on Taiwan, from a state the US and much of the Western world support or at least de facto like to defend in Asia. They never made any remarks regarding Taiwan's claims with 18 other countries. If the US supports peace in the Asia Pacific (besides looking at a map and asking why the US has even a say about Asia in the first place), then surely Mainland China must be supported, as by protecting & legitimizing Taiwan's constitution, you're approving this shit in Asia.
Show
But let me guess, neoliberal countries get a pass from the crackerverse?
Holy shit, you’re telling me that both sides in a civil war think they should have full control of the country they’re in a civil war over? Hang on I need to sit fucking down my head is spinning
Here’s a question for you: would you support a Chinese military invasion of Taiwan?
If the Taiwanese state would never capitulate and reintegrate peacefully with the CCP state, which is their claim, then wouldn’t that make an invasion of Taiwan inevitable, regardless of weapons?
Assume that it wouldn’t, though - I could just as easily say “with the right incentives, the United States could elect a communist president and transition to a people’s republic”, so let’s take them at their word that never means never and go from there, shall we?
You’re not engaging with my argument because you know fine well what the outcome would be. I think we’re done here.
Oh, my apologies, you’re quite right, I initially misread your message, sorry about that - thank you for your answer and I appreciate your consistency. I appreciate you arguing in good faith and I understand your position.
I disagree with you, I think you have an altogether a bit too optimistic perspective of the CCP, but I understand why you would be inclined to feel that way.
My point is, I think it’s pretty clear that Taiwan stands no chance whatsoever in a hot conflict with the Red Army - I hope that’s something that we agree on. I am sure that Taiwan is also very aware of that fact.
So what threat is posed by providing conventional munitions to Taiwan? If they were used in aggression, they would guarantee their own demise. Do you really think that they would be so desperate to strike a meaningless blow against the CCP that they would trade everything to accomplish that?
If so, why would these weapons change anything? They could have sacrificed everything for a single meaningless act of violence long before now. It’s not like Taiwan is being supplied with nuclear weapons, is it?
Providing Taiwan with conventional weaponry only accomplishes one thing: making an invasion of Taiwan less compelling.
A threat to CCP interests it may be, but that wouldn’t justify a military invasion that would kill a shitload of people, would it? It would have to be sinking food or medicine shipments with coastal guns or something equally abhorrent to justify such an act. And again, that would absolutely be valid justification for an invasion, so they wouldn’t do it. How can you claim to be one of the good guys when you justify a military invasion and the deaths of thousands of innocents as “just a fact of how things will turn out”.
No, I think you need to read my comment and your's again. You say appeasement politics will lead to no good, so... you protect the ROC's claims instead, which is even appeasing more that just leaving China. I caught your illogical argument, and distilled it to the meaningless content that it was. Now you pretend stupid to run away from that illogical claim. But you can't win against me, who studied at Oxford, Nato boy
you can’t win against me, who studied at Oxford, Nato boy
This is the most unbelievably embarrassing thing I have ever read on Lemmy. Honestly, if you regret writing this, please let me know. I will amend my comment to erase the fact you ever wrote it.
you protect the ROC’s claims
Please cite evidence of my support of Taiwan’s territorial claims. If you believe that opposing CCP imperialism means that one must also support Taiwanese territorial claims then you have made an incorrect assumption - and a converse error on your part does not constitute a failure on mine.
I’m very sorry that I refuse to defend the strawman you so thoughtfully prepared for me. By all means, whack away at him. I would suggest that you take your own advice, by the way, and read my actual comment and respond to the text of what I wrote, not some imagined subtext your Oxford-educated brain conjured to allay your cognitive dissonance. Oh, and one last thing - whatever your parents paid for that education, unfortunately it would appear to have turned out a poor investment.
what do you think imperialism is? the island of taiwan has historically been part of china, the KMT just held onto it after losing the civil war. it's like if the CSA somehow kept florida
And United States has historically been part of the United Kingdom. Does that mean if the UK redrew maps to show that the US was their territory it wouldn’t be imperialism? Imperialism is the expansion of the territory or influence of a state especially through the use of violence. The CCP wishes to extend its influence into Taiwan and they are willing to use military force to do so. That’s why they’re so mad about Taiwan being provided with the means to defend themselves. It would make a military invasion more difficult and costly.
Then get prepped, cause I did my postgraduate at MIT as well. There are no smarter guys than those graduating there. I knew you would now claim "where did I said we need support Taiwanese territorial claims mimimi". Did you read the article and what it is about? What is the US and what is China's point of conflict? Tell me, how can you say "we can't appease China blabla..." to do what? Taiwan is the exact part of their sovereign terrorial claims. Opposing them on the fact that Taiwan becomes/remains independant is exactly enabling the territorial claims of the state on that island, ROC.
And now you backpedal, "I'm commenting on the article but in fact I do not support US point of view and argue without the context of any article we comment on!!!1! Its my isolated opinion from those events and blabla" or "Actually I meant we should oppose China but also make demands on Taiwan's contitution and put conditions on their clams blabla...". I know that if you would understand any of this conflict or history you wouldn't actually call under the article of US warmongering, encirclement and violation of the One-China policy regarding China's claim of Taiwan, an act of "CCP imperialism". But know you backtrack and try to slip away like a oily snake. There is no escape from my superior arguing skills, and you're critic of appeasing hypocritical is false even on the level of formal logics.
whatever your parents paid for that education, unfortunately it would appear to have turned out a poor investment.
This is the real strawman in this thread.
You sound like Donald Trump lmao. “Oh I went to Harvard got really good grades”.
I haven’t backpedaled on shit. I wrote a top level reply in an off-site comments section. I am not required to take an all-or-nothing position, either wholeheartedly agreeing or disagreeing with every claim in the article. The world has nuance.
“Oh I went to Harvard got really good grades”
Then next, guess where I did my PhD.
I haven’t backpedaled on shit. I wrote a top level reply in an off-site comments section. I am not required to take an all-or-nothing position, either wholeheartedly agreeing or disagreeing with every claim in the article. The world has nuance.
A lot of words for saying you have no consistent logic. If you understand the claims of Taiwan and that the US is supporting this state, you can't impossible speak of "CCP imperialism", in the context of ROC's claims, and call their right for their territory as appeasement. But I know that people outside of Harvard have liquid arguments.
Btw lmao I neither studied at US nor UK, that only a joke. Yes I think he said something along that with Harvard lol
You’re making a converse error again - A TV can’t turn on if it’s not plugged in. Therefore, if the TV can’t turn on, it’s not plugged in. The TV could be broken, there could be a power cut, etc.
You’re saying that the United States supports providing arms to Taiwan and the United States supports Taiwan’s territorial claims. Therefore, by supporting providing arms to Taiwan, that means I support Taiwan’s territorial claims.
No. I don’t. So I don’t have to defend their territorial claims. I am sorry if that makes it difficult for you to argue your preferred argument with me, but you’ll just have to engage with my argument on its own terms, not on the ones you imagined.
I neither studied at US nor UK, that only a joke
It was funny, thanks for that.
- Article about US provocating a war with China and violating their One-China principle
- "So we should just appease China or what?"
- "If anything, you appease Taiwan by opposing China"
- "No, I don't, what do you mean, I have a 4D chess move on this, it is nuanced"
Lmao you stand for absolutely nothing. Saying let China exercising their right for their sovereign territory is appeasement is bs, a Western-centric point of view, and China's claims are less and would result in more peace, as shown by my map above. Only thing you could attack was my sarcasm. Lmao, what a lib
I have to say that you are wearing my patience very thin. I have addressed your arguments quite directly, respectfully and tried to encourage understanding, but you’re just continuing to hurl insults. Are you just trolling or are you so steeped in toxic internet culture that you can’t imagine a discussion without insulting your interlocutor?
We both know that Taiwan would stand no fucking chance if it was invaded. You’re basically saying, “if anything, you appease the Sudetenland by opposing Nazi Germany”.
Anyways, I’m done with this argument, I have proven you wrong countless times now and you just keep pushing me to defend a position that I do not hold and then you’re just getting mad about it. I wouldn’t be arguing with you if I didn’t stand for anything, would I? I support peaceful coexistence, reconciliation and the end of capitalism.
I guess you're like an anarchist whose talking points just happend to align with the US department. I proved my case that the "appeasement" of China is the lesser "evil", and there is nothing that they demand that is crazy and actually would result to more peace than even Taiwan's constitution, which was the point of the map.
I have to say that you are wearing my patience very thin.
gonna cry?
I don’t think you have proved that case at all. How is increasing the likelihood of an invasion of Taiwan the lesser evil, pray tell?
gonna cry?
I probably won’t cry, but it is harmful to my mental health, so I might have to block you if it continues.
I don’t think you have proved that case at all. How is increasing the likelihood of an invasion of Taiwan the lesser evil, pray tell?
Who and why would anybody invade them? The elections are in January, the pro-mainland politicians will win, if one followed their general public opinion in the slightest, and will stop buying weapons from the US and work towards a solution to join like an autonomous region. The only difference? The claims above will disappear, and they will continue calling Taiwan a region like they do now.
The only way they will get invaded if the US creates a color revolution before January, keep this ROC alive with all it's claims, and if you read the article, will increase their military presence on and around the island. In case of a successful provocation, they will throw Koreans and Japanese as well into the meatgrinder.
So, if Taiwan had a revolution, would an invasion would be justified?
pray tell
Oh holy shit it's you! The pray tell guy!
Can you sign my copy of 12 Rules for Life?
Sure thing, send me a DM with your details and I’ll send you the address of my PO Box.
The only territorial claims China has tried to enforce recently are to literally uninhabited lands (Aksai Chin and the SCS islands) and Taiwan (which they are still at war with).
How much do you really care about a piece of rock with no people and no animals living on it?
The politics of appeasement has historically been very successful.
Episode 89: How Charges of 'Appeasement' Equate Diplomacy with Treason
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/vd8w3ONjv6Y?t=17m25s
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
If the source isn't negative about China, or doesn't cast them as the villain in every scenario, it must be propaganda.
But naturally, the opposite is never propaganda.
Wars are great for the economy. Color me completely unsurprised if politicians are starting to see it as strategy.
Hell of it is, with how set in their ways a lot of the US' high level politicians are there might be some plain force of habit in there. Most of 'em seem to still think it's 1975.
